Setting a good example in Iraq

[Dave_Schuldt]

Hats off to the CBC to do what our media wont. Some realy sick shit.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/badapples/index.html

So this is what democrocy looks like?

[Cobra_Commander]

democrocy

 

You misspelled democrocoshitricy

[JoshK]

"He explained the rational for doing so to Gillian Findlay: "I don't see why we ought to follow a policy that was created for wars between nation states that follow the laws of war when we're fighting an opponent that violates all the laws of war.""

 

 

So the argument is we should lower our standards because we are fighting such bastards? What happened to setting the example, following the moral high ground, and sticking to the principals of our country? It just goes to show that the Bush Whitehouse will use any sleazy tactic nescessary, even if it means selling off what this country stands for.

[foraker]

What? What's your problem? No one's getting a blow job in the oval office. Honor and dignity was brought back to the White House. End of story. Move along now, nothing to see here. Oooh, look! A non-specific terror alert based on unverified but credible evidence! Move quickly now or we'll have to violate more of your remaining civil rights.

[Stonehead]

Repost: John Yoo was a member of the legal team that developed a new policy

 

I think it’s interesting that he makes a distinction between law and policy. As I understand it, law is the framework by which policy is derived and policy is that expression of law to guide the actual workings or application. Seems in this case that there is a wide latitude given within the framework of law as it’s translated into practice.

 

Technically within the framework of the law as it is written, Bush may be correct or, at least to his cognizance, in stating that we do not torture although I find it difficult to believe given that American agents are involved in the process. Or, perhaps foreign agents are used? Then, yeah, there’s the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’. In any event, we are enabling the practice of torture by allowing it to take place in areas outside the jurisdiction of the United States (although Guantanamo is considered by treaty to be US soil).

 

Did you notice that the lawyer was very deliberate and/or precise in his use of words? So really, are we arguing about the definition of ‘torture’?

 

Ok, what applies first in the case of an American citizen classified as a ‘terrorist’ or ‘unlawful combatant’—the US Constitution or the guidelines developed under the general rubric of the ‘War on Terror’?

 

The reality is that I don’t believe it would make a difference whether we’re under a Democrat or Republican administration. I believe that Machiavelli understood the world as it really is. So, the government issues public denials but the very real practice of extraordinary measures occurs.